This is the reason I became a blogger. I spent too much energy on forums and message boards beating my head against brick walls. Physics may one day find a solution for straightening out the fuzzy logic that clouds so many heads, but I had finally proven (to myself at least) that you can't do it on a message board.

I saw this cartoon on Terrierman's Daily Dose today.

One thing I like about blogs is the flow of ideas and the great quantity of topics we're exposed to and can subsequently do research on.

Take Cass Sunstein. His name hadn't registered with me before Terrierman wrote a post about him, and challenged his readers to Google Cass and learn about him on their own.

I did just that.

And I reached some startlingly different conclusions, which I submitted to the comments of that blog.

As punishment, I was called a puppymiller.

Don't ask me why.

The exposure to contrarian ideas (mine) was evidently so devastating that Terrierman devoted a whole blog post to decrying it.

And exposed me to the cartoon that reminded me why I began blogging.

What I want, more than anything else, is for humanity to embrace liberty. I'm not above taking a page from Cass's book and nudging people there, a little bit at a time.

I try to explain liberty while I share important dog-related topics, and if people can ask a few more questions about the traditional dogmas as a result, that will be priceless.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Ms. X has had a bit of an exchange recently on the subject of Cass Sunstein, and regulations and legislation in the comments over at Terrierman's Daily Dose.

Perhaps most people don't realize what a huge part of our lives are governed by regulations. The United States government has an entire website devoted to the regulations put out by their innumerable departments and agencies.

Cass Sunstein is going to be the head of the agency that looks at all these regulations and judges their "cost-effectiveness". Cass Sunstein is a deep, deep believer in regulation, a huge fan of FDR's New Deal.

Here is the Sunstein bottom line:

"In a nutshell, the New Deal helped vindicate a simple idea: No one really opposes government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. The simplest problem with Laissez-faire is not that it is unjust or harmful to poor people, but that it is a hopelessly inadequate description of any system of liberty, including free markets. Markets and wealth depend on government."

That's his baseline. His benchmark. His starting point. And why he is scary in the Regulation-Czar seat.

You see, furry comrade, when you assume that everyone wants and needs regulation, and you can mold society through regulations, only your imagination can stop the train.

Contrary to what Cass Sunstein thinks, there are many people who fervently wish for less regulation. Much less. That is what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about. But perhaps Cass Sunstein doesn't know about the Revolution.

My free range grass-fed beef provider sent along a notice about some scary upcoming regulations from the USDA.

Regulations, you see, do not require an act of Congress to implement. They are rules written up by government agencies under the pretext of being authorized by some past Congressional legislation. The only way they can be stopped, is if Congress comes back and passes specific legislation to overrule the rules.

Or, the Regulation Czar (Cass Sunstein) can rule against them.

So please, read through the following and help if you can.

USDA Publishes Proposed Rule on NAIS

USDA has issued a proposed rule that would mandate NAIS premises registration and animal identification for several key animal disease programs. If this rule is adopted, hundreds of thousands of people who own cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs will be forced to register their property and use only tags approved by the USDA for NAIS.

Individuals and organizations can submit comments until March 16, 2009. There are two ways to submit comments:

After we have had a chance to analyze the rule fully, we will send out sample talking points to help people in submitting comments.

Here are some of the initial highlights:

1. If the rule is adopted, the NAIS Premises ID Number (PIN) would be the ONLY form of premises identification allowed for official uses such as federal disease control programs.

2. The proposed rule states that it will still allow the use of the National Uniform Eartagging System. But it would be linked to the NAIS PIN.

3. USDA claims that it has determined that the proposed rule is "not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866," which requires a cost-benefit analysis of federal regulations. But the agency has refused to release its draft cost-benefit analysis on NAIS, despite a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

4. This would be the first time that any portion of NAIS was mandated in the Federal Register. This is a huge step in the WRONG direction!

Excerpts from the Proposed Rule

Below are a few excerpts from USDA's explanation of its proposed rule. The full notice and proposed rule can be found at:

"[W]e are ... requiring that all PINs issued on or after the date on which this proposed rule becomes effective would have to use the seven-character alphanumeric code format." [Ed. note: the NAIS PIN]

"Identification eartags, as well as other devices or means of official identification, such as backtags and tattoos, that employ a premises-based numbering system that include a PIN could not be applied to animals 1 year or later after the date on which this proposed rule in finalized if the PIN does not employ the seven-character form."

"[T]his proposed rule would not require the use of the AIN. Other animal identification numbering systems currently recognized in the regulations for use on official eartags, such as the National Uniform Eartagging System and premises-based numbering systems that combine a PIN with a producer's livestock production numbering system, will continue to be so recognized. If the AIN is used, however, on an official eartag or other device (currently, it is only used on eartags and implants), only the format with the 840 prefix would be acceptable for use on animals tagged 1 year or more after the date on which this proposed rule in finalized."

From p.1636:

"Our proposed definition of official eartag would also require such eartags, including those that use the National Uniform Eartagging System, if issued or distributed in conjunction with a Federal disease program, to be correlated with the PINs of the premises to which they are issued, by means of the Animal Identification Number Management System (AINMS) or other recordkeeping systems approved by the Administrator. (Both the National Uniform Eartagging System and the AINMS are discussed in greater detail later in this document.) For this proposed requirement to be met, official eartags used in animal disease programs could only be issued, going forward, to registered premises that have PINs."

"Our proposed definition of official eartag would also require that when AIN eartags are used, the AINs would have to be correlated with the PINs of the premises to which they are issued, meaning that AIN eartags could only be issued to registered premises that have PINs."

From p.1637:

"The definition of official eartag in Sec. 79.1 would be amended to remove the option of using the National Uniform Eartagging System in the NSEP [National Scrapie Eradication Program]."

The Online Voting Effort Continues

Unfortunately, Stop NAIS! did not make it into the Top 10 Ideas at Change.org. But the privately run competition apparently drew the attention of the Obama transition team. The official website of the President-elect has set up a section where people can vote on ideas, and the top ideas will be presented to President Obama after he is sworn in.

Several suggestions to stop NAIS have been posted. The one that has garnered the most votes so far is Eliminate NAIS and you can find all the ideas that mention NAIS by searching the citizens briefing book. Please take a moment and vote for eliminating NAIS!

This is a critical time in the fight against NAIS. Please stay tuned for additional information as we analyze this proposed rule, and as we continue to fight for bills at the state level. We need everyone's help to protect our freedoms and our food!

Monday, January 26, 2009

Dog owners, rescuers and "responsible" breeders alike cry loudly against the practice of culling whether it be because the pups are the wrong color, have some undesirable cosmetic feature, the litter is deemed to big for the bitch to raise, or perhaps the breeder simply didn't think she could find homes for all the pups.

And then these same complainers turn around and vote in a government whose leaders say things like Nancy Pelosi did yesterday morning:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

If the government is able to cull its population because it can't afford it, why does a dog breeder take any heat?

"Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?" published in 2006, offers some stunning insights into show breeding.

"Why are they stunning?" you ask.

Well, if Ms. X may be permitted to quote herself, this study supports something she wrote in June 2005:

One thing they all agree on is that most dogs today are pets. Not working dogs. So most dogs today should be bred for that calm, easy going, non-aggressive temperament that pet owners need.

But not one of them, Jane, Tom, Mary or especially Elizabeth, would EVER accept crossbreeding to produce a star in that most important job - being a pet with a calm, easy going, stable, friendly temperament.

Now Dr. Svartberg doesn't discuss hybrids in this paper - Ms. X was referring to the part about the importance of breeding for a fabulous "pet" dog. Most dogs are sold as pets, so why on earth don't more people focus on breeding pets?

Please remember, in every litter bred for show or working, there will be puppies that do not meet the high standards a good breeder sets. These pups will go to pet homes. Rarely are all puppies in a litter "show pups." Since the rest will be available to pet homes, there is no need at all to go to someone "just breeding for pets."

So there you have it. It's wrong to breed for the perfect pet, because then a show breeder would have no place to dump their 'misfits'.

The argument the show breeders make, of course, is that the "pet quality" dogs are just as good as the "show quality", only having perhaps one or two minor flaws that the average owner will never be able to spot anyway.

And that has been the accepted answer for a long time now. True, yes. Good enough? NO.

Ms. X wondered why she had never heard of Dr. Svartberg before.

So what exactly does Dr. Svartberg say? Take a look. I'll hold the truthlight for you.

The breeds’ use in dog shows, the dominating use in general, was negatively correlated with all investigated traits, both in sires and in dams....Thus, these results suggest that selection for dog show use is positively correlated with social and non-social fearfulness, and negatively with playfulness, curiosity in potentially threatening situations and aggressiveness, whereas selection for Working dog use is positively correlated with playfulness and aggressiveness.

The author only looked at differences between breeds that were bred for the show ring, and breeds that were bred for working trials. He didn't look at any breeds designed to be optimal pets. (Of course, there aren't any...)

Furthermore, correlation analyses show that popular breeds have higher sociability and playfulness scores than less popular breeds, suggesting that a positive attitude towards strangers is an important characteristic of a functional pet dog and desirable by dog owners. This indicates that selection towards use in dog shows may be in conflict with pet dog selection.

Wow. Stunned now?

Furthermore, these results suggest that basic dimensions of dog behaviour can be changed when selection pressure changes, and that the domestication of the dog still is in progress.

It is still possible to produce a star at that most important job - being a pet with a calm, easy going, stable, friendly temperament.

The showring isn't doing dogs any good. It isn't preserving structure or improving anything. Most dogs live as pets. In this expensive, litigious day and age, people need healthy, good tempered pet dogs. They don't need rejects from the showring freakshow.

Nobody escapes the truthlight. Not even the President of the United States.

Are there odds in Vegas that this country will survive to 50, uh, leaders of the "free world"?

44 will not be a leader of the free world. Barack Obama made that all too clear in his inaugural address.

"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents."

You see, furry comrades, if the people are the only ones remaining faithful to the founding documents, while the high office holders exercise their "vision", we will not long remain true to the founding documents.

Purebred dog breeders have taught us this. The barbie breeders have spent so much time exercising their "vision" of the perfect dog, that todays' perfect dog bears little resemblance to the original breed standard.

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises"

Well, of course we can't know for sure if he will keep all his promises until the final day of his term, but history is not in his favor.

He has already failed to end petty grievances, as witnessed in the Inaugural Prayer.

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right." - Rev. Joseph Lowery, Inaugural Prayer

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned."

Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.

(Ms. X just shakes her head). It was precisely this (low) level of worker productivity that helped to precipitate this crisis. But I know, I am just a dog blogger. So I give you the great Peter Schiffs' take on the real problems of American "productivity".

This is just like a show-breeder claiming that their pugs or english bulldogs are no less healthy than they were before the BBC ran the famous Pedigree Dogs expose. Of course they're not. The expose', simply revealed to the world a storm that has been brewing for a century. Just like our Financial Crisis.

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done;"

It takes Big Government to enable Big Plans. History gives us an inverse relationship between the size of government and the freedom of the individual.

He may be correct that our memories are short. Few alive today remember that Lincoln (Obamas' patron saint) began the modern version of our current demise.

Can you hear a show breeder saying this? "There are some who question our ambition of creating the perfect dog, who suggest our genepool is incapable of producing a functioning healthy dog. Their memories are short. They have forgotten what we have already done.

Oh yes. We have seen BIG changes in this country since the original values were laid down. Those changes have not moved us toward greater individual freedom.

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them."

No. No. We understand all to well. "October 3, 2008, the American people were betrayed by those whom they had elected to represent them" wrote William Cox. Of course it wasn't the first time it happened, but it was the the sea change of Ms. X's lifetime.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

It is NOT the venue of government to provide jobs, decent wages, healthcare or retirement. Any government movement forward is a step back in individual freedom.

""So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, it acts by contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government." - Thomas Paine

"Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths."

Courage and fair play. Loyalty and patriotism. Old truths that we need to return to? Well, Thomas Paine died in 1809. The old truths he expressed simply don't support Obamas' action plans.

Guess what will be left by the wayside?

The correlation to the purebred dogs show world is inescapable. Show breeders talk constantly of "preserving the breed", even as they destroy its capacity to do the work it was created to do.

Much the same way our Leaders of the Free World talk incessantly of preserving freedom, even while they steamroll any possible capacity for the individual

Friday, January 16, 2009

“The greatness of a nation ( and its moral progress) can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” – Mahatma Gandhi

There is scarce a dog forum, discussion list or group in the world that doesn’t have at least one member with this quote in their tag line.

Who, can possibly complain about Gandhi?

Who indeed. Well my furry comrades, no one escapes the truthlight.

Let’s take a closer look, shall we?

Since presumably no one can besmirch Gandhi, or protest against treating animals well, this quote is held high over us all like a golden scepter.

The greatness of a nation…

Yes. You’re starting to see it. I can tell. Nationalism. Nationalism is a very different thing from Patriotism. Patriotism loves the goodness of your country. Nationalism loves its evils.

“By patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige.. ., for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” – George Orwell

The greatness of a nation can be judged…

The nation is judged as a single entity.

Notice how it is judged on its GREATNESS?

Not its compassion, or intelligence or liberty. No. The NATION is judged on GREATNESS.

Does [national greatness] not consist in Liberty? That Liberty is a kind and fostering Nurse of Greatness will be cheerfully and cordially admitted but as we have seen National Greatness where there was no Freedom, so we have seen free Nations where Baseness rather than Greatness constituted the national Character. – William Morris

National Greatness is not a sympathetic virtue.

National Greatness => Nationalism => Government Tyranny

Look at the quote in its entirety.

The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its’ people treat their animals.

Oops. My bad. It really says,

The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

Again I entreat you to look carefully at the wording. The quote says “its animals”. "Its" clearly refers to "a nation". "Its" does not refer the people of the nation who own the animals.

Ghandi does not suggest that a nation is great because it is made up of great individuals that each treat their animal well.

Rather, the quote suggests that a nation is great because it has a large central government that forces people to act in a way that it (the large central government) deems acceptable.

“Nationalism is inseparable from the desire for power.” - Orwell

Using the power of government to force feel-good compliance from your neighbor so you can tell your European friends how moral your country is, is nationalism.

Raj Panjwani, a Hindu who campaigns for animal rights in Australia and New Zealand, is a stellar example.

[Panjwani] says he came not to preach, simply to tell how he has achieved improvements to the lives of animals in India through the use of the law.

…the law is about empowerment, Panjwani says.

And when the government-induced animal welfare ends your rights keep a pet or buy meat for your children?

What then?

When the Nationalism goes bad, as it always eventually does?

Nonviolent Gandhi had the solution for that too.

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Thursday, January 15, 2009

I want to dress my beef and pork on the farm where I’ve coddled and raised it. But zoning laws prohibit slaughterhouses on agricultural land. For crying out loud, what makes more holistic sense than to put abattoirs where the animals are? But no, in the wisdom of Western disconnected thinking, abattoirs are massive centralized facilities visited daily by a steady stream of tractor trailers and illegal alien workers.

But what about dressing a couple of animals a year in the backyard? How can that be compared to a ConAgra or Tyson facility? In the eyes of the government, the two are one and the same. Every T-bone steak has to be wrapped in a half-million dollar facility so that it can be sold to your neighbor. The fact that I can do it on my own farm more cleanly, more responsibly, more humanely, more efficiently, and in a more environmentally friendly manner doesn’t matter to the government agents who walk around with big badges on their jackets and wheelbarrow-sized regulations tucked under their arms.

So goes life on the farm. And you thought farmers were independent! Far from it.

I don’t ask for a dime of government money. I don’t ask for government accreditation. I don’t want to register my animals with a global positioning tattoo. I don’t want to tell officials the names of my constituents. And I sure as the dickens don’t intend to hand over my firearms. I can’t even use the "U" word.

On every side, our paternalistic culture is tightening the noose around those of us who just want to opt out of the system — and it is the freedom to opt out that differentiates tyrannical and free societies.

How a culture deals with its misfits reveals its strength. The stronger a culture, the less it fears the radical fringe. The more paranoid and precarious a culture, the less tolerance it offers.

Responsible dog breeders are not much different from farmers. Everything you want to do just might be a violation. Oh, you'll opt out, you say? You might like your AKC inspector now, but if he becomes a government agent, you too will play by their rules.

[DHF:] Where did the whole “sea kitten” concept come from?[Peta:] "It was something a couple people at PETA thought of when they were thinking about the fact that more fish are killed for food each year than all other animals combined, but they just don’t receive the same sympathy that dogs and cats receive."

Picture the adorable baby land fish leaping playfully up those falls...batting at the spraying water...

Ms. X has long held that our increased sympathy for the fate of predators is merely a reflection, and an affirmation of our own predatory status.

If we deny our predatory status, we must 'use our power for good' and deny the other predators that status as well. We have the technology to create vegetarian kibble for every species. But if we do it, the unchecked hordes of herbivores competing for those vegan resources would ensure all of our demise.

Recently I followed a discussion amongst behaviorists about when precisely "learning" takes place. For example, if you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, does learning take place when you deliver the instruction? Or the next time the child sees a hot stove, and doesn't touch it, is that the moment when learning has occurred? Or did it occur at some point in between, when the instruction was processed?

And by the way, how many angels do dance on the head of a pin?

Well, never mind the last question. But for the first, brain scans are getting so good, before to long we will be able to tell exactly what every person knows, just by waving a tricorder in front of them.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Do your New Years' Resolutions involve trying to cut back? Whether you're cutting back on expenditures or food intake, or both, this article is for you.

"Leftovers are Not a Bad Thing", from NaturalNews.com is a rare, rational read about feeding dogs. The author lays out the case that Leftover, are indeed, not a bad thing. Used to supplement your dog's kibble intake, they can help you fulfill your New Year Resolutions. You won't be tempted to scrape the bowl, if you know that it will feed Fido supper, and that's one less meal of kibble you have to buy, cutting expenses.

As the price of everything goes up, dog food goes with it. And, if you are eating a healthy low-carb diet, your leftovers are almost guaranteed to be dog-friendly.

So go ahead. Supplement with your own leftovers, and both of you can avoid the scourge of obesity.